← News·Markets · OutlookMarkets

Saudi Arabia's PIF Governor Says EU Subsidy Rules Are Driving Away Foreign Capital

The governor of Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund has warned that European regulations are actively hurting foreign investors, putting one of the world's largest sovereign wealth funds on record against the bloc's…

NM
NewsMV Markets Desk
3 min read
20 June 2026Markets desk
Share this dispatch

Key takeaways

  • The governor of Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF) warned that EU regulations, specifically the foreign subsidies regulation, are actively hurting foreign investors.
  • The EU's foreign subsidies regulation was designed to stop state-backed entities from using government support to distort the single market and outbid private competitors.
  • PIF's governor argues that legitimate foreign investors are being unintentionally caught by rules meant to curb unfair, state-funded competition.
  • Rising compliance burdens and deal uncertainty could shift sovereign wealth fund capital toward jurisdictions with lower entry costs rather than Europe.
  • The EU has been refining how the regulation is applied since it took effect, and major investor feedback is part of that ongoing calibration.

The governor of Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund has warned that European regulations are actively hurting foreign investors, putting one of the world's largest sovereign wealth funds on record against the bloc's foreign subsidies framework. The remarks arrive as concerns mount over the EU's foreign subsidies regulation and its effect on cross-border capital.

A Sovereign Voice Joins the Pushback

The Public Investment Fund's position carries weight beyond the headline. PIF is among the most active sovereign investors globally, and when its governor flags a regulatory regime as damaging, the complaint lands differently than a lobbying group's white paper. The message is simple: current EU rules are creating friction for outside money, and that friction has a cost.

The specific concern centers on the EU's foreign subsidies regulation, a mechanism designed to prevent state-backed entities from distorting the single market by using government support to outbid private competitors. The intent was defensive — protecting European firms from what Brussels views as unfair competition funded by foreign treasuries. The unintended consequence, PIF's governor suggests, is that legitimate foreign investors are being caught in the same net.

Who Pays and Who Loses

The commercial stakes are direct. Sovereign wealth funds from the Gulf, Asia and elsewhere have spent years deepening their exposure to European assets across infrastructure, real estate, private equity and public markets. If the compliance burden or deal uncertainty introduced by the foreign subsidies regulation rises high enough, capital allocation shifts — not necessarily away from Europe permanently, but toward jurisdictions where the entry cost is lower.

European policymakers face a structural tension here: the foreign subsidies regulation was built to guard competition, but sovereign investors are not always competing with local firms. They are often co-investors, anchor LPs or buyers of assets that domestic capital cannot absorb alone. A rule calibrated for one risk can generate a different one.

What Comes Next

The EU has been refining how the foreign subsidies regulation is applied since it took effect, and feedback from major investors forms part of that ongoing calibration. PIF's public statement is the kind of signal Brussels will register — not because sovereign funds get a policy veto, but because recurring warnings from large, credible allocators tend to inform how regulators weigh enforcement priorities and potential amendments.

Categorymarkets

Filed via ft.com

Keep reading

More from the markets desk

Frequently asked

Who made the warning about EU rules driving away foreign capital?

The governor of Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF), one of the world's largest sovereign wealth funds, made the warning.

What specific EU rule is being criticized?

The criticism centers on the EU's foreign subsidies regulation, which aims to prevent state-backed entities from distorting the single market by using government support to outbid private competitors.

Why does PIF say the regulation is problematic for investors like itself?

PIF's governor argues that sovereign investors are often co-investors, anchor LPs or buyers of assets domestic capital cannot absorb alone, so a rule built to curb unfair competition unintentionally penalizes legitimate foreign investment.

What could happen if compliance burdens keep rising?

Capital allocation could shift toward jurisdictions where the entry cost is lower, rather than moving away from Europe permanently.

Will the EU change the regulation in response?

Sovereign funds do not get a policy veto, but recurring warnings from large, credible allocators like PIF tend to inform how regulators weigh enforcement priorities and potential amendments.